My
local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the
tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning
read. Trump’s acceptance speech, for example, was covered on the front
page with two stories: on the left a straight, albeit somewhat
judgmental, account of the speech, and on the right a “fact check” that
disputed every point made by the GOP nominee. Clinton’s speech was
covered with three front page stories, with headlines describing her
nomination as “historic,” “inspiring” and “trailblazing.” A relatively
mild fact-checking piece was relegated to the back pages.

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print
and television media to such an extent that it has become almost
impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to
tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders
of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing
this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally.

To
take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped
the Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National
Committee’s computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously
erased by Clinton’s staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump
had asked the Russians to commit “espionage” against the United States.
Aside from the fact that Trump was obviously joking [and never used the word hack], Clinton claims
those emails, which were on her unauthorized server during her tenure as
secretary of State, were about her yoga lessons and personal notes to
her husband — so how would revealing them endanger “national security”?
Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically.A New York Times
piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly reporting Trump’s
contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that “the
Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct
cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a
stretch to conclude from this description that the New York Times is a
Trump adversary?"...

(continuing): "The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning
level of collaboration between important media outlets and the
Democrats. Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sought to
silence NBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who had found fault with the DNC’s role
in the primaries. The emails have headings like “This must stop.”
Incredibly, NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed to act as a go-between, even
arranging a call between Wasserman Schultz and Brzezinski. Which raises
the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders
from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s
coverage of the Trump campaign?

The DNC emails also show that Politicoreporter Kenneth
Vogel sent his copy for a story on Clinton’s fundraising operation to
the DNC’s national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, prior to
publication. Politico has since apologized, but Vogel has his defenders.
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple said Vogel’s “prepublication
generosity” was meant to give “the people you’re writing about…the
opportunity to rebutall relevant claims in a story.” One wonders if the
Washington Post does this for the Trump campaign. Somehow I doubt it.

Since last summer, Politico
has been vehemently anti-Trump, and it’s only getting more extreme.
It’s run several stories linking Trump to Vladimir Putin: “Why Russia is
Rejoicing Over Trump,” “GOP Gobsmacked by Trump’s Warm Embrace of
Putin,” “Donald Trump Heaps More Praise on Vladimir Putin” — and dozens
of similar articles. The gist of these pieces is that Trump’s stated
desire to “get along with Putin,”andhis comments on the costs imposed
by our membership in NATO, mean that Trump is essentially an agent of a
foreign power.A recent article by Katie Glueck on Trump’s hacking joke
said that Trump “appeared to align himself with Russia over his
Democratic opponent” — as if he were a kind of Manchurian candidate."...

Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can
certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election
— and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her”
for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump
bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.